Our current political climate is fractured. We're told, almost on a daily basis, that we must choose a side. There is no "both/and," only "either/or." This same logic applies to the topic of cyberbullying.

Now, no one is saying that cyberbullies are right. When you pester someone, whether it's online or in real life, you're denying them a basic right to be themselves and feel comfortable in their own skin. However, at the same time, who can question the exalted right to free speech?

The clash between these two ideas can be seen in virtually every comment thread the Internet has to offer. When people are allowed to be anonymous, not pairing their ideas with their face or real name, all hell can break loose. Indeed, people feel they can act more negatively towards one another when they are not physically in the presence of the person whom they debating. Take, for instance, one YouTube user who appears to have taken it upon him or herself to patrol the comment thread on this version of Amanda Todd's video, using all sorts of profanity and ad hominem arguments against anyone who who makes light of Todd's suffering:

There are 145 such comments on the first page alone, ranging from long to short, vulgar to tame, and so on. Why would someone use some much of their time on this comment thread defending a teenager they've never even met? And how exactly is attacking people personally, even people who may intentionally be trolling the thread to get a rise out of others, helping to further the discussion?

This is a prime example of how easily the human "id" can take control in emotionally-charged situations. In this case, the user may fully believe they are doing what's right. Either you are on the side of the cyberbullies or you're on the side of their victims. I found one conversation between this user and another, though, that sounded a great deal more respectful and more indicative of what real Internet debates should probably look like:

While the black user defend his points more or less respectfully (minus the "mother" jab in the first screenshot), the red user seems to have point as well. Our so-called interest in these bullying stories is largely false. There is a part of human nature that is altruistic, but there is another stronger part characterized by selfishness and apathy towards others. If we pretend to care, we look more morally-favorable, though the care is not genuine. When someone, like the red user above, dares to express an opinion that goes against the majority rule, they are automatically chastised. The concept of free speech, especially on the Internet, is a case of something looking good on paper but being taken out-of-context when applied with emotions. You can have an opinion, the Internet proclaims, as long as it's the same opinion as the majority of the population.

The "either/or" argument is also seen in the below comparison chart between Todd and celebrity heiress Paris Hilton. I should note that the original image includes a photo of Hilton wearing a "We <3 To Erase MS" shirt, accompanied by a photo of Todd in her underwear.

I found this on FunnyJunk.com, along with one comment that comes close to an explanation:

This is the opposite side of the coin from over-zealous YouTube vigilantes defending Todd -- this attacks her based on what little knowledge complete strangers have of her life. Notice that that user chose to be anonymous, because unfortunately, the rest of the thread is either people who think she is completely at fault, or are immature enough to want to see the supposed sex tapes in question. This user is in the minority, believe it or not.

The chart, once again, uses the "either/or" approach to manipulate the perception of Amanda Todd. By including an image of her mostly undressed, she is labeled as a whore, and the list of promiscuous behavior is presumably cherry-picked from what is known about her personal life. While the overall effect is supposed to be ironic, what the chart fails to take into consideration is that everyone makes mistakes. Everyone has bad experiences and good experiences, and everyone is selfish at times and generous at others.

A more detailed breakdown of the poor argument of this chart can be found on Maoist Rebel News.

Internet culture teaches us that we can say whatever we please without repercussions. This is not true, and may be part of the reason why websites are asking people to display their full names on their profiles. Anonymity and the desire to take a side are contributing factors to how Amanda Todd's story has been digested by the public. Maturity may present itself once in a while, like in this excerpt from a Tumblr post (full post here):

This insightful post got two notes on Tumblr. Two.

Sometimes, the wisest voices turn out to be the quietest ones.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.